Programming meetups don't look like writing workshops because software is different from prose.<p>One big difference is the goal. The goal of a writing workshop is to make more readable stories. Readability is the metric, the only one that matters. When someone reads your story, they are performing a usability test. And when they tell you how to make the story more entertaining from the perspective of a writing-workshop writer, they are -- to first order -- also telling you how to make the story work better for the average reader, and how to make it sell better, and how to write a story that will attract publishers and agents to your work.<p>(Of course, to second order, workshoppers tend to produce the kind of writing that fellow workshoppers like. This can be a problem. There are people who are known as "writers' writers" -- those whose work is beloved by their fellow writers but which fails to catch on as strongly with the general public.)<p>A related difference is that story-writing is a smaller and better-defined problem than programming. There is one set of tools: The English language. There is one audience: Literate readers of English. There is a long tradition. There are well-established tropes. The marketplace is pretty well understood. (And the writers who aren't aiming to sell into traditional writing markets -- like, say, prolific bloggers -- don't tend to hold traditional writing workshops either. I've never heard of a blogging workshop. What sense would that make? Blogging <i>is</i> a giant global workshop.)<p>Finally, writers -- even fairly talented ones -- are a dime a dozen. The supply of people who want to write, and attend workshops, is vastly larger than the demand for written stuff.<p>Software is different. For one thing, it is far more diverse. A workshop in which Lisp programmers read strangers' corporate Java code, or expert Javascript programmers critiqued Linux disk drivers, would be kind of awkward -- fun and enlightening, perhaps; an entertaining circus of flamage, quite likely; but probably a bit superficial. To get a writing-workshop experience in software, you need to get everyone working on the same codebase. Open source is key here. Go to a Drupal code sprint, or a Rails hackathon.<p>Also: Software isn't designed to be read. Even those of us who would like to <i>believe</i> that software is designed to be read... don't design software to be read. Not primarily. The primary goal is that the stuff works, and/or that people buy it or use it. And the net result is that meetups tend to focus on "virality". Is the software nifty? Does it solve a problem? Is it usable? What's its cost/benefit ratio? Sad but true: These things are the metrics. They are, to first order, more important than the quality of the source code. [1] That's why programmer meetings gravitate towards these fundamental topics.<p>Finally, good programmers are hard to find, so it's hard to get three of them together in a room without someone trying to post a job ad on the wall. Writers <i>wish they had this problem</i>. If the writing-workshop folks heard you <i>complaining</i> that, gosh, you just can't hold a programmers' gathering without people trying to hire everyone in the room, they would burn you in effigy.<p>----<p>SUMMARY: "To get a writing-workshop experience in software, you need to get everyone working on the same codebase. Open source is key here. Go to a Drupal code sprint, or a Rails hackathon."<p>---<p>[1] Of course, code quality does matter. But usually because it contributes to the other goals, not as a goal in itself. So criticism of software often focuses on the primary goals: Does it work? Does anyone care?